Written by
by Tara Overzat
Back on 22 January 2009, the NY Times ran an op-ed piece with a by-line of Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan political leader. The piece advocated a one state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict, as stated below.
“A two-state solution will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel. An armed Arab state, presumably in the West Bank, would give Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point. Further, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would do little to resolve the problem of refugees. Any situation that keeps the majority of Palestinians in refugee camps and does not offer a solution within the historical borders of Israel/Palestine is not a solution at all.
For the same reasons, the older idea of partition of the West Bank into Jewish and Arab areas, with buffer zones between them, won’t work. The Palestinian-held areas could not accommodate all of the refugees, and buffer zones symbolize exclusion and breed tension. Israelis and Palestinians have also become increasingly intertwined, economically and politically.
In absolute terms, the two movements must remain in perpetual war or a compromise must be reached. The compromise is one state for all, an “Isratine” that would allow the people in each party to feel that they live in all of the disputed land and they are not deprived of any one part of it.”
The entire article can be found here.
Muammar Qaddafi
What, then does Qaddafi get out of Isratine? The concept of making one large country goes well with his idea of “Jamahiriya,” his philosophy that a mass-state is best. For decades, Qaddafi has been heralding the idea of a single pan-Arab nation, which would rival the size and possibly the power of a unified Europe, the United States, or perhaps China.
Qaddafi is no saint. Yet, in Qaddafi’s old age, people are coming to revere him. Nelson Mandela has publicly lauded him, and Qaddafi stands as a strong figure in pan-African organizations such as the African Union. This is in part fueled by his donations of other people’s money into sub-Saharan states. It is strange how short collective memory can be, and this is oddly reminiscent of how people can forgive Jimmy Carter all his presidential shortcomings now that he is an aging humanitarian. This is not to say Carter performed any actions as atrocious as Qaddafi’s, but only to provide an example of how the public is perhaps too willing to forgive and completely forget the faults of politicians.
President Barack Obama
Qaddafi’s rhetoric above is poetic and well-conceived; however, all politicians use speechwriters. This includes people as seemingly disparate as Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. One should never be impressed by a politician’s touching and eloquent speech because he did not write it, and may or may not deeply believe in what he is reading. A wonderful speech can be lauded as a great moment of public speaking, but should be regarded as nothing more. What a politician does while in office is what actually counts. Actions do speak louder than words (clichés exist for a reason- because they are generally true). This is what makes the current presidency so troubling. President Obama was, after all, voted in based on delivering speeches better than his competitors could, and for speaking of half-formed, swell-sounding ideas. He was not voted in based on any actual record of accomplishment of accomplishment. While we should all retain hope and pride in our new President and give him a fair chance, it is important to keep in mind that this presidency will not truly be successful unless Obama’s actions trump his speechwriter’s flowery prose.
In short, nicely written op-eds and well-delivered speeches do not count for much. A NY Times column will not solve the myriad problems of the Middle East and a simple speech will not fix the US economy. If politicians truly care, they must go beyond words and make positive things happen. Even better, let them step aside and allow the people to decide for themselves how to live their lives in more peaceful and productive ways.
Related Articles:
George Bush & His Malapropisms
Recent Comments